Karn's opinion of Women

Karna’s opinion of women in general isn’t very good.  However, it would be wrong to presume Karna had low opinion of women due to Kunti’s abandonment of him at a young age.  In fact till the very end he has no idea he was a foundling child.  By all accounts he was dearly loved as a child by Radha and Adhirath.  To make this point, despite knowing the facts, he introduces himself as the ‘son of Radha’ to everyone including Kunti.  So Karna’s disregard for women is difficult to understand.

We hear about his opinions negative opinion on women after Draupadi’s swayamvar, when Duryodhan suggests causing dissention amongst Pandavas by means of Draupadi, Karna suggests that women like to have multiple husbands and having achieved that dream, Draupadi will never abandon her husbands.  When we compare this with his cruel speech in the aftermath of the dice game, he once again suggests women like to have multiple sexual partners.  Along with Duryodhan, he insults Draupadi as a whore for having multiple husbands and suggests such women have no honour or shame.  To his eternal shame, Karna orders Dushashan to denude Pandava and Draupadi.  He suggests slaves and prostitutes are shameless and so there is no shame for them to be naked in public.  We understand the Pandavas threw their upper garments on the floor to signify their nakedness, we do not know of their lower garments.  One presumes they were intact, as no one has suggested they were taken off.

Sadly for Draupadi, as she was menstruating, she was only wearing a single garment.  At Karna’s instigation, Dushashan started to pull it off her body.  Kauravas, Dushanshan in particular, paid dearly for insulting Pandavas’ wife in this manner.  But what of Karna who instigated this sorry display of shamelessness in Kuru court ?  If one incidence speaks of Karna’s low up-bringing, it is this.  Only his nurture amongst the lower rungs of society, where sexual violence and sexual humiliation of women (and men) is still used as revenge, vendetta and ‘score keeping’, can explain why he suggested it.  

Karna further states that slave women have no such thing as ‘husbands’ and can chose any man as their master.  He openly suggests Draupadi should chose any one of the Kaurava princes as her new master.  Such language, to be used in public towards an anointed empress, shows distinct lack of manners and morality.  Then, as now, there is no excuse for it. 

Many pro-Karna authors have argued that because Draupadi ‘dishonoured’ Karna by rejecting him at her swayamvar, he had some sort of ‘right’ to dishonour her in Kuru court.  Because she rejected him for a suta, ie her rejection was due to his upbringing rather than his merit as a warrior, he had the right to dishonor her in the aftermath of the dice game in this way.  What they do not explain is how does rejecting a potential suitor equate to incitement for rape and being publically denuded ?  How do the two humiliations even compare ?  Being called a suta was not a humiliation, but a matter of fact.  It was and is the same as being addressed by your surname.  If not by surname, how else would you address a new acquaintance ?  If a person is ‘embarrassed’ by his / her surname, how can you hold others responsible for that ?

What a lot of Karna supporters utterly fail to see is that Draupadi was at her own swayamavar and by the codes of kshatriyas women at the time, she was within her rights to chose who gets to compete for her hand in marriage.  Surely, as it was her party, she can chose who she wanted to dance with !  Karna knew this was a swayamvar for princes of royal houses, yet he decided to gatecrash it and try his luck.  Just because Duryodhan had made him a ‘king’ he presumed he had the right credentials to be competitor at the swayamvar.  Fact of the matter is, Karna was given his crown which he hadn’t earned or won.  His title as a king was a ‘gift’ from Duryodhan and hence in the eyes of the world, it was a hollow title, bereft of any real substance or honour.  Druapadi was within her rights to reject a puppet king whose only claim to the crown was through favours and graces of a wicked prince.

Is it ‘reasonable’ for a rejected suitor to humiliate or publically disrobe or incite rape of a woman based on the fact that he felt bad at being turned down ?  Surely Karna should have been man enough to accept the rejection at the swayamvar and respect the right of a princess to decide who she allows to compete at her swayamvar.  But this is where his upbringing amongst the lower rungs of society shows itself.  Even now, ‘men’ at the low rung of society are culturally unable to accept a ‘no’ from women.  If they make a pass at a woman, they expect her to either accept their crude remarks as a compliment, or walk away suitably ‘shocked’.  What they can’t and will not accept is a feisty woman who rejects their advances and tells them to go away.  Draupadi’s rejection of Karna hurt his male-ego and for that reason he decided to get his revenge even a decade later.  Despite having been crowned a king, despite having lived amongst kings for decades, he wasn’t sufficiently cultured enough to act as a king and respect women, especially royal women.

There is no credible excuse for rape.  Inciting someone else to do it is as bad as doing it yourself.  Rape is rape and it is unacceptable at any time, any place.  No one should make an excuse for it.  Sadly, even in 21^st century, internet savvy, ‘educated’ people make excuses for Karna’s sick attempts at use of sexual violence to ‘get even’.  This probably reflects on their own acceptance of use of sexual violence to ‘get even’.  Any civilized person would rightly reject such actions and would condemn it outright.  Those who support the attempted rape of Draupadi, should really examine their own conscious and value system to see how humane or civilized they really are.

Return to Index

Return to Mahabharta Index

Return to ShriNathji's Haveli 

© Bhagwat Shah    [email protected]